Some people got together and decided to do some myth busting.

Mythbusting Takes on Shielded Cabling

Some quick takeaways:

1. Termination time is not twice as long.
2. Grounding the shield is not required for effective attenuation of noise.
3. Shielding does not trap heat inside the cable.

First of all, I would never trust the opinion of anyone that doesn't have bad things to say about Type 1 cable.  As far as I know I was the person that bought the last roll of Type 1 Greybar had in stock. 

While the BICSI tests may show some myths busted, I don't know that they have shown any real advantages.  The biggest problem with shielded is I have never seen an installation that was done correctly and kept correctly over the life of the installation. 

Hell, I don't know that I have seen must UTP done correctly either. 

Some of his testing methods are unreliable for what he is attempting to prove.

As an example, his radiated susceptibility test (Unshielded vs. Shielded vs. Shielded and ungrounded).
He is using what, a network hotspot as a means to determine if radiated emissions will get into his cable? What is the max transmission power on that thing, 0.5W at 2 GHz? From that he ascertains that there is no effect on grounding the shield.

I can tell you for a fact that radiated susceptibility is a real thing. A long unshielded cable run will pick up emissions and electrical noise. Whether it is 60Hz hum from fluorescent lighting or emissions from other equipment. It may not happen in the equivalent of 5 feet of cable, but if you look at 50 or 100' of cable passing through an area with a high electromagnetic field or high RF emissions, you will see those on the signal. Also his testing by using an oscillioscope set to time display is retarded. He should be using a spectrum analyzer to look for the peaks from his radiated source, or a high speed O-scope displaying an eye diagram, not that a spread spectrum WiFi hotspot is likely to produce much of anything on either of those instruments.

Also his conclusion on ground loops is incorrect. I have seen systems with ground potential variations of >5V. Grounding the cable shield on both ends generated a fair amount of current flow and played havoc with the signals passing through those cables. Ground on one end of the cable only.

Modern differential signals such as Ethernet are designed to be tolerant of things like radiated RF or electromagnetic emissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling
So his testing specifically against this type of signal is going to lead to his conclusions. While radiated noise may not be such a huge problem for modern Ethernet, a general statement that it is not a problem, at all, is blatantly incorrect. Even the differential signals on Ethernet will eventually get overwhelmed when the EMF gets large enough. I worked at a facility with a 3000HP electric motor on a variable frequency drive. When that motor was running, non-shielded Ethernet passing through that area would not work, at all. The shielded cable (only on one end) worked fine and no difference in transmission speed was seen with the motor running or not.

In my last job I was a network engineer in a large industrial manufacturing facility.  We had every piece of equipment you can imagine from CNC machines to EDMs and waterjets to 80 year old non CNC lathes.  Most of the time UTP worked just fine.  We had shielded in a few places that proved to be more trouble than it was worth.  Inconsistent would be the best term.  We finally just installed it in EMT an called it a day.

We did had a non-ethernet control system that we finally gave up on.  It didn't matter what combination of filters were installed, it just didn't work.